But I do not feel content-it will not be doing justice to my own conviction, to leave the matter here to leave our sphere of political action thus circumscribed within such narrow bounds. I will not go about to prove that congress has the power to abolish slavery in the states; for that would be granting that slavery is constitutional. I will enter into no argument to prove that it is right for the national legislature that it has the power-to do justice-to give the inhabitants their dues. If the slave-laws and slave trade are unconstitutional, as I believe and think I have clearly shown above, then we through congress not only have the power to abolish slavery in the states, but it is our duty so to do. If the masters oppress the slaves unconstitutionally if they have taken away their constitutional rights and privileges then we are bound as citizens to take the part of the slave, and see that that justice which the constitution guarantees to him be done him. No one will deny but what we are bound to go and suppress an insurrection of the slaves, if there should be one. No one will deny but what we are bound to go and protect the master against the slave, and are we not as much bound (I speak politically) to protect the slave against the master, and see that the master does not take away his rights? How exceedingly fond people are of speaking of their limited powers and means when they are indisposed to use them! I do most sincerely believe, that we, as citizens, are bound, by a fair interpretation of our political duties and the engagements made by the confederative constitution, to go and demand that the slaves should have every right and privilege secured to them, either expressly or impliedly, by a fair construction of the language and principles of the constitution, and that until we do this the sin of slave-holding in all its magnitude is chargeable upon us. We are just as much bound to protect the inhabitants of our country from illegal oppression within the borders of our own country, as we should be if they were thus oppressed in a foreign country. When some three score of our citizens were enslaved in Algiers, we waged war against that power to protect our citizens; but now, while three millions are enslaved in our own country, we are not ready to do any thing, and are told that we can do nothing. But be not deceived, God will not judge according to men's judgment. But for those who are not prepared, as yet, to go the length of the above statement, I would say that we have an undoubted moral right to think and speak and exert our moral influence. We have an undeniable right to convince the southern slave-holders that they are committing a sin in holding their fellow beings in bondage. Thomas Jefferson wrote in August, 1785, to Dr. Price, of England, to have him interpose and exert all the moral influence he could. "Could you," says he, "trouble yourself with our welfare, no man is more able to give aid than yourself." "Be not discouraged. Northward of the Chesapeake you may find here and there an opponent to abolition, as you may find here and there a robber and a murderer, but in no great numbers." He calls the abolition cause 66 an interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and oppression." I take pleasure in quoting an authority justly held in so high an estimation. If, then, it was right for a foreigner to interfere and exert a moral influence, it certainly must be so for our own citizens. If we have no political right or duty to interfere with slavery in the southern states, we certainly have a moral and religious right. We have the same right that Jesus had to cleanse the temple, which the Jews had made a den of thieves. We have the same right that Paul had to preach against the fornication of the Corinthians and the idolatry of Ephesus and Athens. It would be much better for us to go to the south and preach our doctrines there. But they will not hear us. They will not allow a word to be said in public against their favorite institution. Senators White and Grundy, from Tennessee, declared in the senate chamber that they would encourage the Lynch laws being executed upon every abolitionist found in their state. White defended the whipping, with twenty lashes, one Amos Dresser, without any law to justify it, and without trial by jury, merely for being an abolitionist, when it was not proved and could not be proved that he had said, or that he intended to say, a word upon the subject in the state. Senator Lumpkin, from Georgia, said that if abolitionists went to Georgia "they would get caught." Preston, of South-Carolina, said that "if an abolitionist came within their borders, they would hang him, notwithstanding the opposition of the United States and all the governments on earth." If, then, we cannot apply our remedy to the diseased part, it must be taken into the system by the mouth, and we must trust to the general circulation to carry it to the diseased part. But we are by no means free from the disease ourselves. There is no such thing as the hand or the foot being completely decayed and the man suffer no harm. All the members sympathize with the diseased part. But although the south will not allow one to preach against slavery there, there are a great many abolitionists at the south. Their number is increasing fast. Some of the most zealous and effective abolitionists were once southern slave-holders,—men and women of the highest standing among their citizens. Among them are James G. Birney, formerly Solicitor General of Alabama; A. E., and S. Grimké, whose brother, the Hon. Thomas S. Grimké, was one of the most prominent men of South-Carolina. There are hundreds of others at the south. Their names are not given to the public, for that would expose them in their lives and property. No, it is not safe for one to think as he pleases, on some subjects, in this free country. IX. Perceiving these spheres of influence open to them, some friends of liberty, justice and humanity, commenced the abolition enterprise; and although it seems, to the impatient hopes of the zealous, to be a slow movement, yet its rapidity and success are hardly equalled by the rapidity with which any other cause of any thing near its importance has progressed, in the world's history. I am not able to fix upon any date or event which I could regard as the commencement of the enterprise-whether to consider the imprisonment of Garrison, at Baltimore, or the establishment of the Liberator, in Boston, in the winter of 1831, or something else, as the commencement of the abolition enterprise, I know not. But it is of very little consequence. The enterprise commenced about that time. In 1832, the New-England Anti-Slavery Society was formed at Boston. It consisted then, I believe, of only about a dozen young men, who were termed, by way of scorn and reproach, 'ardent young men'-'incendiaries'-fanatics'-hot-headed zealots'-'disorganizers,' &c., &c. In December, 1833, a convention of about sixty delegates, from various parts of the country, met at Philadelphia and formed the American Anti-Slavery Society. There are now auxiliary societies in most of the northern states, and also one in the slave-holding state of Kentucky. I have not time or material here from which to give you a full history of the progress of the abolition cause. I will only notice a few things. In the winter of 1834 and '35, the prejudice was so strong against the abolitionists in Boston, that they could hardly get a place to hold a meeting through fear of a mob. They have since gradually won their way, until they have now about fifteen hundred societies, and probably not less than two hundred thousand persons who have, or are ready to subscribe to their principles, and join with them in their measures. The cause was never increasing faster. Such success in what Jefferson called "the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and oppression" is most encouraging to its friends, and should warn all who are not its friends to "refrain from opposing these men, lest haply ye be found to even fight against God. If this counsel, or this work, be of men, it will come to nought of itself; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow them." The discussion of slavery and the determined perseverance of the abolitionists soon called forth a good deal of bitter and angry opposition. The evils which appeared to be necessarily consequent upon an agitation of the subject were so great as to intimidate many. I will notice some of these objections to the abolitionists, and to agitating the subject in any form at the north. I have already considered our right to do something; but many who would assent to the right would still question the 'expediency' of exercising it. Do they "remember those in bonds as bound with them" ? Others doubt if the course the abolitionists are taking will produce any beneficial effects to the slave or to the country. It is said that a discussion of the subject of slavery may dissolve the Union. The south threaten it. It is neither certain nor probable that a discussion of the subject will dissolve the Union. The south dare not dissolve the Union, and if we would retort the threat they would stop their mouths and tremble. The south, knowing our attachment to the Union, and our timid, submissive tempers, would make use of these things to promote their own ends. But among themselves they turn pale, and the lip quivers at the thought. Men threaten others with what they most dread themselves. Had I time, I could bring an overwhelming amount of proof to show that the southerners, when out of the hearing of northern ears, confess that they dare not dissolve the Union. The editor of the 'Maryville (Tenn.) Intelligencer,' in his paper October, 1835, says of the slaves at the south, "their condition is second only to that of the WRETCHED CREATURES IN HELL." In a subsequent number, he says, "We of the south are surrounded by a dangerous class of beings, who, if they could but once entertain the idea that immediate death would not be their portion, would re-act the St. Domingo tragedy. But a consciousness that a ten-fold force would gather from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE UNITED STATES and slaughter them, keeps them in subjection. BUT TO THE NON-SLAVE-HOLDING STATES WE ARE INDEBTED FOR A PERMANENT SAFE-GUARD AGAINST INSURRECTION. Without their assistance the white population of the southern states would be Too WEAK to quiet that innate desire for liberty which is ever ready to act itself out." Yet these are the slaves of whom the Reverend J. C. Postell, of South-Carolina, said: "Contrasting the condition of white slaves in New-England with our slaves in the south, is like comparing Egyptian bondage under Pharaoh's taskmasters with millenial glory-Mild slavery at the south is heaven on earth to the tyranny of the spindle at the north." A southern member of congress was over-heard to say, immediately after the house adjourned on the ever memorable 21st of December, 1837, when Mr. Slade, of Vermont, was put down whilst speaking against slavery, "We have seen our weakness, we have seen *** the unconquerable attachment of all the south, except one or two men in South-Carolina, to the Union. Let slavery be abolished in the District of Columbia, let the capital be given up to free negroes, the District of Columbia sunk, and I shall never give up the Union but with my life." These are the men-these who look to us for a ten-fold force to slaughter the slaves' if they should rise against their oppressors, as our fathers arose against Great Britain-these men who have an unconquerable attachment to the Union'—these men who will not give up the Union but with their lives,' are they, who threaten us with a dissolution of the Union. These men, who have every thing to lose and nothing to gain by the act, threaten us, who have nothing to lose but much to gain, with a dissolution of the Union! and we are scared into silence by the threat! "Be stirring as the times; be fire with fire, But, then, if it come to the worst, we are not bound to dissolve the Union, or any thing else, rather than do injustice? Are we not bound to 'leave all,' if need be, for righteousness' sake? They'll dissolve the Union, they say: would it not be better to dissolve the earth itself into misty vapor, than to disobey God? It would be better to have the whole south sink, and the huge monsters of the briny deep gambol over their cotton fields; yea, it were better that the earth itself should fly from its orbit into the wintry regions of everlasting night, than that its inhabitants should continue to insult the God of heaven by enslaving his children. But are the abolitionists responsible for the evils of agitating the question, be they what they may? Is it not rather he that has done the wrong who is responsible for its consequences, than he who discovers and reproves it? It is frequently said that we at the north do not know anything about slavery; we have never seen it, and know nothing about it except by report. The people of the south, who live there in its midst. and have the best opportunity of knowing its character, do not regard it as a great evil. Northern men when they go there become slaveholders themselves, and lose all their prejudice against the institution when they become acquainted with it. It is true that northern men do frequently lose their abhorrence of slavery and become slave-holders themselves, when they go to the south. It is true that many of the southerners regard, or pretend to regard, slavery as no evil, but a blessing,-"the corner-stone of our republican edifice;" but they do not all so regard it. The opinion of the southerners is so different in different individuals, and at different times, to suit the occasion and purpose that the speaker or writer may have in view, that we can hardly say what it is. It is one thing or another, just as you may happen to quote from one man or another, or from opinions expressed on one occasion or another, by the same man even. But suppose it to be true, as it is assumed in the above statement, that the south do not regard slavery as an evil, moral or political-that they do not regard it as injustice and cruelty-that they do not regard it as sin against the most High God: what follows? what inference will you draw? Who are of this opinion? What part of the population of the south have you consulted, to receive this opinion from them; those who reap all the benefits of slavery, or those who drink the cup of its bitterness? of its bitterness? When in the world's history has it been known that tyrants have preached liberty and democracy? When has the oppressor thought oppression an evil? Ask the oppressed and enslaved if slavery be no evil. Let their voice be heard in a thing that so nearly concerns them; and if they confess, as you may find now and then a case when one will confess that slavery is no evil, we must feel that we have imbruted them beyond having a sense of their wrong; we have clean quenched the candle which the Lord lighted up in their souls at their creation. We shall then see how much greater is the sin of slavery than it otherwise would be, and how much more urgent the necessity for doing something. But the case is not so bad as that, as is proved by the fact that hundreds risk life and suffer the extremes of hunger and fatigue every year, to cross the free states to Canada, where oppression cannot reclaim them. But what inference do you draw from the fact that northern men become slave-holders? Do we not know that vice is a monster which "seen too oft and familiar with its face We first pity, then endure, then embrace"? Have not many of us, who have not been to the south, grown so 'familiar with its face' that we not only endure, but pity, and are |